Williams v. Syed

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

June 29, 2017

TRAVIS D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,v.DR. SALAM SYED, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff
Travis D. Williams, a prisoner in the custody of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, has submitted a proposed
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his 80-page
complaint, Williams names 57 defendants. Since filing his
complaint, he filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
into Four Separate Complaints (dkt. #14), and a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (dkt. #18). Williams has already been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and made
an initial partial payment of the filing fee. The next step
normally would be to permit him to amend his complaint and
then screen it as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, but
because Williams' complaint so clearly violates Rule 20
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court will
instead grant his motion to amend, instruct him on how he may
proceed, and deny his motion for preliminary injunction
without prejudice.

As
Williams acknowledges in his motion to amend, his complaint
contains multiple, unrelated claims against different
defendants. Accordingly, Williams must choose which lawsuit
he wishes to pursue as Case No. 16-cv-474. Once Williams has
made his selection, the court will then screen that action
under § 1915A. The other, unrelated claims will be
dismissed without prejudice, permitting Williams to pursue
them in separate lawsuits.

CLAIMS

Williams
is presently confined at the Columbia Correctional
Institution (“CCI”). For the most part, the named
defendants are medical personnel and officials employed by
the DOC at CCI, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge
Correctional Institution and in Madison, Wisconsin. He also
names medical personnel at private institutions located in
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Williams
seeks to bring claims under the First, Fourth, Eighth,
Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, as well as state
negligence and malpractice law. His claims appear to arise
from: (1) treatment related to his physical and psychological
problems while he was incarcerated at Dodge and CCI from 2014
to present, (2) his transfer from Dodge to CCI, (3) the
manner in which various DOC employees handled his inmate
complaints, (4) his ability to pursue civil lawsuits, (5) the
conditions of his cell and (6) denial of his requests to see
a Jehovah's Witness clergy member.

OPINION

Rule 20
prohibits a plaintiff from asserting unrelated claims against
different defendants or sets of defendants in the same
lawsuit. More specifically, multiple defendants may not be
joined in a single action unless: (1) the plaintiff asserts
at least one claim to relief against each defendant that
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences; and (2) presents
questions of law or fact common to all. George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). If the
requirements of Rule 20 are satisfied, then a plaintiff may
join additional, unrelated claims against those same
defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a).

Williams'
complaint unquestionably violates Rule 20 because it includes
at least six unrelated claims against multiple, unrelated
groups of defendants and at least two different facilities
over a period of at least two years. As a result, the court
will permit Williams to file an amended complaint in this
lawsuit, but he will be limited to just that: one amended
complaint. Therefore, in filing an amended complaint,
Williams will have to choose which related claim or
claims he wants to pursue in this case, and the court will
apply Williams' initial, partial payment and assign this
case number to only that complaint.

Williams
may, of course, choose to pursue the other unrelated claims
as well, but must do so separately, paying a separate filing
fee for each lawsuit he chooses to pursue. In
addition, he may be subjected to a separate strike under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) for any lawsuit that is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Once a prisoner receives three strikes, he is not able to
proceed with new lawsuits without first paying the full
filing fee, except under very narrow circumstances. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).

Alternatively,
Williams may choose to dismiss some or all of the other
unrelated claims. If he chooses this route, Williams will not
owe an additional filing fee or face a strike for those
claims. A lawsuit dismissed voluntarily would also be
dismissed without prejudice, so Williams could bring it at
another time, so long as he files it before any applicable
statute of limitations has run.[1]

Because
Williams faces filing fees and potential strikes for each
lawsuit pursued, he should obviously consider carefully the
merits and relative importance of each of his claims and
potential lawsuits before choosing to proceed with respect to
some or all of them. Williams should also be aware that
because it is not clear at this time which of his separate
lawsuits he will pursue, the court has not assessed
the merits of any of the claims. Once Williams
identifies the suit or suits he wants to continue to pursue,
the court will screen the applicable claim(s) as required
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

If
Williams disagrees with the court's conclusion that his
complaint violates Rule 20, he may raise any objections in
his response, but he must still comply with this
order and choose which of the lawsuits he wishes to pursue in
this case. If he fails to do so, the court will
dismiss all of his claims for failure to prosecute.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Williams
should also take care in filing his amended complaint. Beyond
narrowing the complaint to only those claims that arise from
the same transaction or occurrence or involve the same
question of law, Williams should make his complaint legible
and straightforward, so that the court and any
potential defendants can understand and respond to it. In
particular, he should draft it as if he is telling a story to
someone who knows nothing about his situation. This means
that he should explain: (1) what happened to make him believe
he has a legal claim; (2) when it happened; (3) who did it;
(4) why; and (5) how the court can assist him in relation to
those events. He should take care to identify the specific
actions taken by each defendant that he believes violated his
rights. Williams should also explain specifically
what relief he is seeking so that the court may determine
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
Williams should also set forth his allegations in separate,
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.